Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The area of the Virunga is a biodiversity rich area with very diverse ecosystems and a large number of endemic species, some of them iconic. The forest cover in the area makes it relevant in the context of climate change. It is also an area with extensive and important freshwater ecosystems.
Evidence B:Virungas, Gorrillas, Albertine Rift. Virungas across 3 countries, Congo forest basin
but also hugely important for local people esp. Batwa - as they have often been forgotten in the past
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The area covers 2 million hectares of forest, freshwater and savannah ecosystems. It is an important area for climate mitigation.
Evidence B:Tropical rain forest - high above ground C2 and probably low below ground C2
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: In the area there are projects managed by IPLC but there is a significant land grabbing that is happening by high ranked officials and investors that is done at the expense of IPLC that can’t provide land titles for areas that they occupy.
Evidence B:Tend not to be respected - esp under past DRC land use policy which gave rural people no or minimal rights. That is changing and IPLC governance now a great opportunity with changing more positive policies. therefore great opportunity to pilot new arrangements withing changing policy. Proposal describes the land-use policy scenarios very well
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The unique cultural significance of the area for both the indigenous people and local communities is very well presented and documented.
Evidence B:Very well described as to how important the lands are to IPLC groups - for cultural, livelihood, sacred and landscape reasons
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The land grabbing by high ranked officials and investors is the main threat affecting the area together with the practices of IPLC that are forced to undertake illegal activities such as poaching and clearing land within protected areas as a result of the spoliation of their land for which they can’t produce a land title.
Evidence B:Key to resolve is beyond scope of this project - is that of conflict and military and foreign armed groups, intrusions into protected areas with little respect for conservation or people - medium and long term resolving this = killer assumption
other threats include degradation and conversion due to poor governance, right of access by IPLC such reduced by past poilicy and how PAs are/were managed, land grabbing - IPLCs not able to defend rights; agri-business minerals all under mine conservation and IPLCs rights and responsibilities
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: IPLC have very limited rights and the traditional land tenure is not legally recognized and spoliation of IPLC’s land is frequent and in the increase.
Evidence B:Old land act and policy very negative to IPLC management, rights and resps. But new policy a big opportunity to really implement and learn from IPLC management
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: There is some support at the level of the North Kivu Province but there is no national legislation that recognizes the right of IPLC to manage or co-manage natural resources and that secures the traditional land tenure system of IPLC.
Evidence B:Despite past negative policy/law on land - diverse IPLC relarted activities have been implemented. Key is goverance and respect for local IPLC management e.g. of sacred groves. Can learn from existing community forest projects
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: There are a few IPLC-led projects have been implemented in the area, but the land spoliation is continuing and is increasing.
Evidence B:at least two demonstrated initiatives which can be one basis for inform scaling up and scaling out - now given added support by changing policy
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are other NGOs and IPLC-led projects that are active in the areas such as projects implemented by CREDDHO which submitted a proposal for the same area (#301).
Evidence B:a number of small ($$s, scale) projects funded by NGOs which will provide good input, data and lessons to this EoI
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Focus on the legal framework to secure land of IPLC and allow them to manage or co-manage natural resources is fundamental for the success of any future IPLC work in the DRC.
Evidence B:At long last there is one EoI which demonstrates thinking beyond activities. They have 4 strong outcomes (could be worded more strongly) with a focus on securing IPLC lands in terms of geography, management planning, institiutions and a set of activities that will support and improve livelihoods
On this along this EoI should go to next stage! as they are thinking about the right issues - governance, rights, resps and then let improved agric and so forth be one carrot
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Activities are well described and planned. However, there is nothing regarding the adoption of a national legislation that would recognize the rights of IPLC to manage their resources.
Evidence B:Yes - though they could be framed more strongly and could really look at the activities in the context of the Results - as there seem to be a lot of activities and might be a bit ambitious
But one concern - is where this proposal will work in - From maps it seems to be a very large area. Should carefully address the where - for me - that should be around the Virunga landscape
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The main threats are the poor governance of the natural resources, the corruption and the land tenure system that allows spoliation of the IPLC’s land. The activities proposed address only partially the threats.
Evidence B:there is a large shopping list of activities - they could be better framed into few and stronger activites - that really contribute to the overall outcomes of the proposal. Also worry about how military presence will be resolved (beyond scope of this project)
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The proposed activities are achievable in the indicated budget range.
Evidence B:the Indicators (Q9) should be SMART’er as this will help in identifying means to measure: for example: “4 ICCA’s declared with strong management and insitutitional structures in place that are transparent and accountable”
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: There are a few projects in the area that could be considered as co-financing. The proponent mentions eight of them. None of them are engaged in the adoption of a legal framework recognizing the right of IPLC to manage the natural resources.
Evidence B:All relatively small projects which will contribute to the overall level of effort
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: The figures presented seem accurate.
Evidence B:But there are no marine areas (FEM Q2)!!!
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The proponent described in some details these additional cultural and livelihood results which look well documented.
Evidence B:A large number. At present these are means to measure. Need to develop clear and strong indicators (much fewer than what they have0
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The project is buying time which is already important but not sufficient. Without a national legislation that recognizes the traditional land tenure and allows IPLC to manage or co-manage natural resources no long term vision can really be established.
Evidence B:With strong ICCAs well set up with the powers of rights, resps and sanction - this will contirbute to more sustainable future for the ICCAs
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The Eol is an important contribution to the NBSAP as it addresses the element of the conservation of biodiversity, the element of local development through the support and the participation of IPLC and the element of climate change.
Evidence B:Not clearly stated - would benefit from some analysis against NBSAP and NDC criteria - as there is a lot of coherence
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The proponent mentions the need to respond to the gender issue, but does not describe clearly how it is intended to be executed.
Evidence B:need to have a clear set of activities on gender - part of ICCAs anagement structures, rights to land, sitting at the decision making table; understanding and respecting gender differences
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The element of engagement with IPLC is convincing but no avenue is presented to address the land grabbing that is affecting IPLC.
Evidence B:Given the approach - much could be learnt for large scale efforts. But this will need a strong learning component in all actions - not just M&E but working with IPLCs as to what and how they are learning - as this will be crucial to upscaling. dont leave learning just to external Evals and Consultancies but use it as an empowering approach
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The proponent is an NGO but is partnering with seven local IPLC groups.
Evidence B:seems to be fully IPLC lead and implemented through a number of IPLCs which is good. they may well need some additional capacity (e.g. governance)
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The proponent has been doing remote piloting of IPLC groups. A stronger and on the ground engagement is obviously needed in this project.
Evidence B:CEPED have a number of on the ground IPLC partners, even though CEPED is not directly on the ground - this is important for building local capacity
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The proponent has identified seven IPLC groups to work on the project to cover legal aspects, mapping and agriculture.
Evidence B:not sure on links with national and regional?? National links important in terms of policy advocacy and keeping Gov aware of ICCA approach, learnings and resuls
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The proponent has technical expertise in the needed fields to lead the activities implemented by IPLC.
Evidence B:No GEF exp, but does have exp with other projects requiring safeguards. Not quite clear on governance skills in terms of participation, institutions, representation, accountability and so forth - all really needed to make ICCA management a success beyond the project cycle
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The proponent is managing an annual budget of $500,000 in average and the organization has been regularly audited.
Evidence B:not sure about 1 project over $200K - as most of funding is small scale - less that $100k, but CEPED and partners have audits and regular accounting
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: It is unclear under the implementation of which projects the proponent got familiarized with safeguards.
Evidence B:Limited